0 W owrk. | Or. ~e, 
THE 
AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 


CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 





The Plan of Agreement between the two Amer- 
ican Tract Societies having been abruptly abro- 
gated by the Boston Society, the Executive Com- 
mittee of the New York Society referred the matter 
to the five members of the original Committee of 
Conference on the part of that Society, “to prepare 
and issue such a statement of the whole subject as 
they shall judge the best interest of this Society 
requires.” 

That Plan of Agreement is as follows: 


1. ‘‘That the Society at Boston withdraw all its agents 
from the field ; discontinue all personal or other appeals for 
funds, either to churches or ecclesiastical bodies, in New 
England or elsewhere; and that its existence be continued 
distinctively as a Publishing Corporation. But that it may 
carry out fully the designs of its founders and past benefac- 
tors, it is to retain the right to receive the voluntary offer- 
ings of churches and individaals, and to distribute its publi- 
cations by grants, as Providence may open the way. 

2. ‘That the Society at New York occupy the field thus 
relinquished ; discontinue its Depository in Boston; and 
transfer the sale and agency of its book and tract publica- 
tions there to the Society at Boston ; and the Society at Bos- 





2 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 


ton transfer the sale and agency of its book and tract publi- 
cations in New York to the Society there. 

3. ‘That both Societies exercise each toward the other the 
highest courtesy of the Book Trade in the matter of republi- 
cation ; and that neither be compelled to keep or sell any 
book or tract which its own Committee of Publication does 
not approve. 

4, ‘That the action herein proposed be consummated not 
later than May, 1868. 

5. ‘That if any future matter of difference arise between 
the two Societies, it be referred to a Committee of two from 
each Society, to be appointed by its Executive Committee, 
said Committee of four to have power to appoint a fifth 
member.” 


The Boston Society have rescinded this agree- 
ment, in consequence of a statement laid before 
them by their Executive Committee, that the New 
York Society had been guilty of bad faith in not 
making the promised “transfer of sale and agency.” 
This Statement has been published, and does us and 

the public grievous wrong, both by what it suppress- 
es, and what it charges. It suppresses the histori- 
cal fact, fundamental to all right conceptions of 
the carrying out of the Plan, that the two Commit- 
tees had unanimously agreed upon a certain method 
of effecting this “transfer of sale and agency;’ and 
then, arguing from these words in the agreement as 
if no meaning had been affixed to them by concur- 
rent and unanimous action, the authors of that 
Statement make the most serious charges against 
the good faith and honor of the Society at New 
York. The revelation of this fact alone, empties 
their Statement of all force, and we might content 
ourselves with this simple vindication. But we 








TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 3 


prefer to answer the charges made against us as 
if the fact suppressed did not exist, and then pre- 
sent the facts in the case as they actually occurred. 


COMMITTEE OF ARBITRATION. 

But first, we call attention to the fifth article in 
this Plan. of Agreement, which was inserted to pro- 
vide “an easy and effectual solution of any difficulty 
which might arise,” and thus guard against the 
necessity of a public discussion. Both Societies 
were under the most sacred obligation to seek re- 
dress for any supposed grievance by a resort to this 
Committee of Arbitration. The interests of the 
common cause in which we were engaged, the 
claims of Christian courtesy, and the express pro- 
‘visions for a suitable Court of Arbitration, should 
have restrained the Boston Committee from forcing 
the matter upon public attention. Jearning that 
they were dissatisfied with the working of the Plan, 
we suggested to them at any early day the raising of 
that Committee, saying we “would co-operate with 
them in the matter,” not doubting that such Com- 
mittee would have fairly adjudicated between us. 
To this suggestion they did not assent, but in 
direct disregard of the fifth article of Agreement, 
and without advising us of their intentions, they 
proceeded to annul the contract, and now attempt, 
by criminating us, to justify themselves before the 
public. | 

SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS. 

Their allegations are: 

First. That the clause in the agreement “ trans- 
fer the sale and agency of its book and tract publi- 


4 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 


cations” to the Society in Boston, means a transfer 
to the Boston Society “of the business previously 
conducted by the New York Society in that city” — 
in mercantile phrase, “the good will” of that busi- 
ness. 

Second. That the stipulated compensation for 
the sacrifices to which, for the sake of harmony, 
they consented, had not been rendered. 

Third. That it was the “understanding of the 
Committee who framed that Agreement,” that the 
lease of the Store No. 40 Cornhill should be trans- 
fered to the Boston Society. 

Fourth. That “we asked that the lease of the 
Store No. 40, should be transfered to us (them) ..... 
to secure for ourselves the prestige of their business 
in this city,’ and that the New York Secretary 
made an “express engagement to cheerfully co-op- 
erate with us in any arrangement which would suit 
us,” as to the lease of this store. 

Fifth. That the expiration of that lease was 
concealed from them until our late Depositary had 
taken the lease in his own name. 

Sizth. That our Society “suffered him to re- 
tain that lease,” and gave him aid “to resume the 
same business which he had carried on as our 
agent,” and wrongfully aided him by advertise- 
ments. 

Are these Statements of the Boston Executive 
Committee, upon which the action of that. Society 
in abrogating the Plan was based, sustained by the 
facts? : 

We propose to answer this question as to each 


TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 5 


allegation and in the order in which it was presented 
to the Boston Society. 


MEANING OF CLAUSE. 


First. They allege that the clause in the Agree- 
ment “transfer the sale and agency of its book and 
tract publications” to the Society in Boston means 
a transfer to the Boston Society “of the business 
previously conducted by the New York Society in 
that city” —in mercantile phrase “the good will” 
of that business. 

What does that clause of the agreement between 
the two Societies mean? 

Jt means that the New York Society should 
transfer to the Boston Society, the agency for 
making sales, of its book and tract publications 
in that city; that is—transfer the sale and agency 
from itslate Depositary to the Boston Society. Such 
construction is in harmony with the third article of 
the agreement, which provides that neither Society 
shall “be compelled to keep or sell any book or 
tract, which its own Committee of Publication does 
not approve.” 

It does not mean that the New York Society 
should sELL its books and tracts to the Boston Soci- 
ety, nor transfer them to that Societ, y as a purchaser, 
nor that it should transfer “its business previously 
conducted there” to the Boston Society except as 
its agent ; nor was it “a contract for value received ” 
as the Boston Committee argue, “to deliver the good 
will” of that business to their Society. We are 
not aware that in mercantile transactions a princi- 


6 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 


pal ever delivers the “good will” of his business to 
his agent--manifestly such an idea is not involved 
in the language of the agreement. 

We do not agree with the Boston Committee that 
the transfer of such good will to their Society’ was 
the “sole equivalent for relinquishing the right of 
personal appeals to the churches,” as is averred in 
their Statement. The object of their agreement to 
“discontinue all appeals to churches,” etc., as pro- 
vided in the first article, was to relieve churches 
and ecclesiastical bodies in New England and else- 
where from all conflict of agencies of the Societies - 
in applying for funds; its essential equivalent was 
the discontinuance of our depository in Boston. 
They discontinue their collecting agents, we discon- 
tinue our depository; and then we mutually trans- 
fer the agency to each other of selling our book 
and tract publications, that is, each becomes the 
Agent of the other in its own city. 

This is all that the phrase in itself means. 
Hence their statement that it means transfer of “the 
business”—the good will of the business—is an 
error. If the obvious meaning of the words is con- 
sidered, the Boston Society have no claim to the 
“good will” of our business in Boston. 


COMPENSATION FOR SACRIFICES. 


Second. They affirm that the stipulated com- 
pensation for the sacrifices to which, for the sake of 
harmony, they consented had not been rendered. 

There is a special injustice to us in the charge | 
that we failed to render them the “stipulated com- 








TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 7 


pensation” for the great “sacrifices” they ‘had 
mace. 

They had already determined that it was best, in 
a merely pecuniary view, to withdraw their collecting 
agents, whether our Depository were discontinued 
or not. That this was so, there is undoubted proof. 
In the Annual Report of the Boston Society, page 
27, at the meeting which adopted the Plan, the 
President of their Society, W. A. Booth, Esq., says: 
“The question was with us [their Executive Com- 
mittee], whether we should submit that action [the 
withdrawal of collecting agents] independent of 
any arrangement with the New York Society.... 
I believe that if we had not taken that course 
{made an arrangement with the New York Soci- 
ety], we should have come before you at this meeting, 
and proposed exactly the same thing we now pro- 
pose—to withdraw all agencies, and rely upon vol- 
untary contributions. ... I believe every gentleman 
of the Executive Committee, and so far as I know, 
all the officers, were of the opinion that that would 
be the best plan for the Society to adopt, before 
we reached this arrangement with the New York 
Committee.” And yet now they claim a great 
“sacrifice” in doing just what they had determined 
to do as “the best plan for that Society!” 


LEASE OF STORK. 


Third. The Boston Executive Committee claim 
that it was the “understanding of the Committee, 
who framed the agreement,” that the lease of the 


- 
8 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 


Store No. 40 Cornhill, should be transferred lo the 
Boston Society. 

_ We state as fact within our knowledge, that 
there was no understanding of the Committee to 
that effect. 


ERRORS OF FACT. 


Fourth. The Boston Executive Committee say, 
“We asked that the lease of the store No. 40 
should be transferred to us” (them),.... ‘to se- 
cure for ourselves the prestige of their business in 
this city,’ and that the New York Secretary, in 
reply to such request, made an “ express engagement 
to cheerfully codperate with us in any arrangement 
which would suit us,” in reference to transferring 
that lease. They here affirm three things: namely 
that they asked a transfer of the lease to themselves ; 
that they asked it to secure the prestiye of our busi- 
ness ; and that our Secretary in reply expressly en- 
gaged to codperate in securing such transfer, nei- 
ther of which Statements is true in point of fact. 

The letter in which they profess to make such 
request is as follows: , 

Dec. 30. “We have long been desirous of hiring 
the small building next our own (24 Cornhill), now 
occupied by Messrs. Graves & Young..... Mr. 
Young of that firm called to-day upon me to say, 
.... that provided they could secure No. 40 Corn- 


hill, they would be willing to release No. 24...... 
I state the matter to you, and inquire if No. 40 is 
in your control; and if so, if we may give Graves & 
Young encouragement accordingly.” 





FTO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 9 


They did not ask for a transfer of the lease to 
themselves for any purpose—they wanted No. 24— 
not No. 40 Cornhill; and the answer of our Secre- 
tary to that letter had no reference to a transfer to 
them of No. 40, or of tle business which had been 
previously conducted in that store. 

Our Secretary answered: 

Dec. 31. “No. 40 is under our control for the 
present; and if the proposed plan is perfected, we 
will cheerfully coéperate with you in any arrange- 
ment of the matter which will suit your friend Mr. 
Young and you. But we cannot speak definitely till 
the business is more advanced than it is at pres- 
ent.” 

At no time has our Society or its Secretary 
made an engagement—either express or implied— 
to co-operate with the Boston Executive Commit- 
tee in any arrangement for the transfer of that 
lease which might suit them: our Secretary in the 
letter referred to, not only made no such engage- 
ment, but expressly refused to speak definitely even 
as to giving control of the building to Graves & 
Young, until the proposed Plan of arrangement 
should be perfected, which plan was not adopted 
by the Boston Society, until the 12th of February, 
and by the New York Society until the 13th of May 
last, and not “perfected” until the details were all 
arranged. 


CONCEALMENT DISPROVED. 


Fifth. The Boston Executive Committee allege 
that the expiration of that lease “was concealed 


10 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 


from” them until our late Depositary had taken a 
renewal of it in his own name. 

To this allegation we are compelled to give our 
unqualified denial. 

Mr. Kemp obtained in his own name from the 
agent of No. 40 Cornhill, some time in February, 
the refusal of a lease of those premises; but such 
fact was not known to any officer of this Society 
until the 26th day of March. On the 28th of the 
same month that fact was communicated to the 
Boston Society by our Secretary in these words: 
“Tf you will furnish satisfactory accommodations 
for us in 28 Cornhill,” “we will thereupon, with the 
consent of Mr. Kemp, who has the refusal of it, [not 
from us,] turn over No. 40 to you.” This we com- 
municated to the Boston Society as soon within a 
single day as 1t was communicated to us. What we 
knew upon that subject was promptly communi- 
cated to the Boston Society. 

It was not the duty of our Society to take a re- 
newal of that lease, to be transferred to the Boston 
Society, nor to notify them of its expiration, as was 
argued in the Statement of their Executive Commit- 
tee, for the simple reason that our Society, had not 

made tany engagement to do so. Neither had the 
Boston Society anys right to or interest in the lease 
or premises. 

We are assured that our Secretary never made 
an “engagement to co-operate with us (them) in ° 
any arrangement which would suit us,” (them,) as 
was alleged by that Committee—that the language 
imputed to him in their statement, was a misquota- 


ll Ch CC 


aaa ee eer 








TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 11 


tion of these words, ‘We will cheerfully co-operate 
with you in any arrangement of the matter which 
will suit your friend Mr. Young and you,” contained 
in his letter of the 31st of December, quoted above. 
We submit that there has been a direct perversion 
of this language of our Secretary from the matter 
in reference to which it was used by him, and that 
great injustice has been done in the attempt to es- 
tablish an unfounded charge against this Society by 
such means. 


NOT WRONGFULLY AIDED. 


Sixth. It isin no sense true that our Society suf- 
fered Mr. Kemp “to retain that lease,” or gave him 
aid “to resume the same business which he-had car- 
ried on as our agent,” or wrongfully aided him by 
advertisements. 

Mr. Kemp resigned his connection with us April 
8, and formed a partnership with another gentleman 
to carry on the book business; and having the lease 
of No. 40, they opened a bookstore there. The 
new firm ordered books as others did, and we sold 
to them in exact accordance with the agreement 
between the two Executive Committees, mentioned 
below, both as to discount and as to time. This we 
had a perfect right to do. Had we refused to do 
it, they could have procured our books through 
third parties. 

We advertised the new firm as we do other 
booksellers. In two or three instances where the 
name of the firm was inadvertently used in cata- 
logues, correction was made the moment it was 


12 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 


pointed out. As it is not pretended that the New 
York Society, or its officers, had any connection 
with the use made by him of “cards and circulars,” 
“newspaper advertisements,’ “old signs and for- 
mer clerks,” or that it could have been prevented 
by the interference of this Society, we fail to see 
any object of referring thereto in the statement of 
the Boston Executive Committee, except to heighten 
the rhetoric of their narrative. 

We have now, briefly as the nature of the case 
would admit, met the allegations of the Boston 
Executive Committee, both as to their construction 
of the clause, “to transfer the sale and agency of 
its book and tract publications,” ete., and the spe- 
cific charges against this Society which constituted 
the basis of the action of the Boston Society in re- 
scinding its agreement. 

Our answer thus far has been made, assuming 
for the argument, that no important fact had been 
withheld from the consideration of the Boston So- 
ciety, which could properly infiuence its action in so 
important a matter as the rupturing of the compact 
which the two Societies had made. 


AGREEMENT OF COMMITTEES. 


But the amazing fact in this connection is this— 
that the Boston Executive Committee concealed 
from their Society the entire action of the two 
Committees in reference to the sale and agency 
of each other’s book and tract publications, and 
omitted to state that they met and unanimously 
agreed upon a specific mode of effecting the object of 











TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 13 


that clause, and acted upon that mode from the hour 
the Plan went into effect. : 

That the Christian public, to whom the appeal 
is made, may reach a righteous decision, we specify 
the action of the two Committees on whom the execu- 
tion of the Plan devolved. 

For the purpose of arranging details for work- 
ing out the Plan proposed, Messrs. Barnes, Kings- 
bury, Stevenson, Rockwood, and Bradford of the 
New York Society, met Messrs. Palmer, Smith, Hill, 
Childs, and Broughton of the Boston Society, Feb- 
ruary 25, at 28 Cornhill, and conferred upon the 
whole subject. The first, and a prominent topic of 
consideration by that Committee, was the sale of 
the book and tract publications of the two Socie- 
ties, in the cities of New York and Boston.° 

A suggestion was made that each Society should 
_ have the exclusive right in its own city, of purchas- 
ing the books and tracts of the other Society. This 
was rejected. After full consideration, on the sug- 
gestion of a member from Boston, it was unani- 
mously agreed, as, in the judgment of the joint 
Committee, the best means of securing the end in- 
tended, that each Society should allow the other “a 
special and exceptional discount not allowed to others,” 
while each might sell to the trade in Boston, New 
York, and everywhere, at a specified but less dis- 
count. 

Having determined this, the Committees went 
farther, and agreed that “the special and excep- 
tional discount” should be from 40 to 45 per cent. 
The points left unsettled were, the exact amount of 


14 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 


the special discount and of the discount to the 
‘trade.’ These points were the subject of correspon- 
dence, and were definitely arranged April 2d. 


AGREEMENT ACTED ON. 


In accordance with this agreement, the Beston 
Committee, April 20th, ordered above $2,000 worth 
of our publications, which were shipped to them on 
the agreed terms of a “special discount.” The New 
York Committee also ordered books from the Bos- 
ton Society on said terms, which were so invoiced 
and sent, and both Societies sold to the trade 
at the agreed trade discount. May 6th, Messrs. 
~ Booth, Palmer, Smith, and Means, of the Boston 
Committee, visited New York, and met Messrs. 
Barnes, Colgate, Hastman, and Stevenson, of the 
New York Committee, in final conference, at 150 
Nassau-street. .The points which had been agreed 
to February 25, in conference at Boston, and by 
subsequent correspondenée, and acted on by both 
Committees, were taken up in detail, approved and 
unanimously voted: as follows: 

(1.) “That each Society shall give to the other 
a special and exceptional discount of 423 per cent., 
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER 
THE SALE AND AGENCY TO EACH OTHER IN ITS RESPECT- 
IVE CITY. 

(2.) “ That the highest discount to the trade shall be 
33% per cent.” 

Four other items were adopted, but were in no 
way connected with the present matter. 

Such was the agreement of the two Executive 





4 


TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 15 


Committees to effect the object sought by the clause, 
“transfer the sale and agency,” and such their ac- 
tion in‘accordance with that agreement. | : 

Both Societies continued to act on this basis till 
the abrogation. The Boston Committee cannot be 
allowed at the end of five months of uniform action 
to go back and question the manner in which the 
second article has been fulfilled by both. 

It is worthy of special note here, that the mat- 
ters complained of in the statement of the Boston 
Executive Committee had occurred before this final 
vote of the two Committees May 6, which would 
seem to be a bar to their charges against the New 
York Committee. 


OTHER OMISSIONS. 


The Boston Committee also omit to state that 
the New York Society, according to the agreement, 
discontinued their Depository in Boston, thus retir- 
ing from the field as a competing establishment: 
and that the “transfer of sale and agency,” was a 
mutual compact, requiring of them in New York, 
- precisely what was required of us in Boston. 

This Depository was an essential element of 
the Society's work in New England. It was known 
as its place of business, where its publications were 
kept to supply individuals, Sabbath-schools, and 
the trade. It was the home of its Depositary, who, 
by industry and skill and long experience, had se- 
cured the good will of the churches of different 
denominations, and established a business of about 
$40,000 per annum—a business which the Society 


16 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 


could only surrender at the sacrifice of thousands 
of dollars. But the contract demanded that the 
Depository should be discontinued, and it was dis- 
continued April 14th, and the books, having been 
first offered to the Boston Society, were reshipped 
to New York. The contract was fully carried out in 
good faith by us. 

With these omissions of essential facts, did the 
Boston Committee present the case fairly to their 
Society ? 


OUR FAITHFULNESS PROVED. 


We have already shown that by a strict con- 
struction of “the terms of agreement,’ we were not 
bound to transfer to the Boston Society what is 
called the “ good-will” of our business. 

But with this statement of what the Executive 
Committees agreed to do and did do under the Plan, 
we are prepared to show the faithfulness of the 
New York Committee in the whole matter; and 
to show, that in discontinuing our depository in 
Boston, and giving them a special and exception- 
al discount over all other purchasers, we intended 
to secure to them the benejits of the book trade we had 
built up in Boston. This we desired, and for this 
Jaithfully labored. So far as they failed to secure 
that business, they, not we, are responsible. 

Three facts prove this. 


FIRST PROOF. 


When the Special Committees first met, Febru- 
ary 25th, to arrange details, and had agreed that 


TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC, 17 


the two Societies should give a special and excep- 
tional discount to each other, as the means of trans- 
ferring the business, Mr. Kemp had charge of the 
New York depository in Boston, not yet discon- 
tinued. He had been connected with one Society 
or the other, at different periods, for twenty-one 
years, was “posted” as to the publications and trade 
of both, and had built up a prosperous business for 
the New York Society at No. 40 Cornhill. As that 
depository was to be discontinued, and the Boston 
Society was to sell our publications at 28 Cornhill, 
the New York Committee suggeste?the employment 
of Mr. Kemp in the united establishment, as the 
natural and sure way to convey the business of the New 
York Society to the Boston Society. This, they urged, 
would promote the interests of both Societies. 

When the Boston Committee objected that 
they could not afford to employ him, the New York 
Committee offered to pay half his salary; but they 
still declined to give him a place in the united estab- 
lishment. This the New York Committee regarded 
then, and do now regard, as the fatal mistake of 
the Boston Committee as to the business of the 
store No. 40. Rejecting the man who had the con- 
trol of the trade, they could not expect to secure it, 
except so far as fhey could command it by the spe- 
cial discount agreed upon; and they thus put it out 
of the power of the New York Committee to secure 
it fully to them. 

Their failure to secure the business, we submit, 
was owing to their own act, and against the earnest re- - 
monstrances of the New York Oonmittee. 


18 | AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 


SECOND PROOF. 


Again: the New York Committee desired also to 
place the building No. 40 at their disposal, to aid 
them in securing the business in our publications, 
and were prevented from doing so only by their own 
non-action in the matter, as will now be shown. 

Let it be noted, that in the Plan of Agreement 
the New York Society’s benevolent work—the collec- 
tion of donations in New England, the granting of 
books and tracts, the management of colportage, 
and the supervision of the periodicals, was not in- 
cluded, and was still to be conducted by the New 
York Society. For this purpose, the representa- 
tives of the Society must have suitable office room 
in Boston. This they had in No. 40; but if they 
should relinquish that building, they must secure 
rooms elsewhere, and they desired to do this in 
28 Cornhill with the Boston Society, especially as 
it was important to present the visible unity of 
both Societies, carrying on their work under the 
same roof. Hence, when the Boston Committee 
expressed a desire to get the control of No. 40, we 
answered, March 13, ‘“‘ We shall want rooms for con- 
ducting our charitable work; what facilities can 
you furnish us in 28?” , 

March 17th, we wrote again: ‘“ We cannot relin- 
quish No. 40 to any one till we know what accom- 
modations we can have with you or elsewhere for 
our charitable work. If your Committee, in re- 
sponding to our letter of the 13th, assure us of sat- 
isfactory accommodations at No. 28, we shall then 


TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. | 19 


be prepared to make arrangements for relinquish- 
ing No. 40. If not, we must remain there, or find 
suitable rooms elsewhere.” 

Once more we wrote, March 28th: “If you will 
furnish us satisfactory accommodations in your 
building for our District Secretaries and for our 
charitable and periodical work under the care of 
Mr. Kemp, we will thereupon, with the consent of 
Mr. Kemp, who has the refusal of it, turn over No. 
40 to you. We earnestly hope this will meet your 
approval.” 

Thus it appears that for weeks No. 40 was 
offered to the Boston Committee, upon a condition 
which they could have met at any moment, by 
specifying suitable rooms for the representatives of 
the New York Society in their building 28 Cornhill. 
Why they did not specify rooms for us remains 
unexplained to this day. 

The condition, “with Mr. Kemp’s consent,” con- 
tained in our last letter, became necessary from the 
fact that the New York Committee had just learned 
that Mr. Kemp had obtained from the agent, the 
refusal of No. 40 when we should cease to occupy it. 
But that action of Mr. Kemp did not prevent us 
from having the control of the building while Mr. 
Kemp was in our service, as he was up to this 
time; and up to this time they could have had it. 
Their failure to secure that building was not the fault 
of the New York Committee. 


20 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 


THIRD PROOF. 


The third evidence of our desire to secure to 
them the advantages of our trade in Boston, is 
seen in the fact that we caused to be inserted in the 
Boston daily and weekly papers as soon as the Plan 
was fairly in working order, the following adver- 
tisement: , 


** American Tract Society, 150 Nassau-street, New 
York, and 28 Cornhill, Boston. 


«The American Tract Society, New York, has discontinued 
its Depository at No. 40 Cornhill, Boston, and transferred 
the Special Agency of its Book and Tract publications to the 

AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY, 
28 CORNHILL, BOSTON, 
N. BROUGHTON, Jr., Dzpostrary, 


where they can be had at the same terms as in New York. 





“N. B. N. P. Kemp resigned his position with the Ameri- 
ean Tract Society, New York, April 8, 1868, which was ac- 
cepted, to take effect April 14th, and has had no connection 
with if since...... 


Rev. L. B. ROCKWOOD, Secrerary. 
H. KE. SIMMONS, TrEasvrenr.” 


If our offer to pay half of Mr. Kemp’s salary, 
that they might have the benefit of his control of 
our book business—if our repeated offer of No. 40 
to them, though bound by no compact to make 
the offer—if our gratuitous and repeated adver- 
tisements of the Boston Society in Boston papers 
and in the American Messenger, does not prove 


TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 91 


our honest and frank desire and determination to 
transfer our trade to them, so far as in our power, 
we know not how it could be shown. 

We have now met the material allegations of 
the Boston Committee, and shown their fallacious- 
ness from their own premises; we have shown the 
plan adopted by the two Executive Committees to 
secure the end aimed at by the phrase, “transfer the 
sale and agency,” and that both Societies acted on 
this plan until the compact was annulled; and we 
have demonstrated the faithfulness of our Commit- 
tee in the whole matter. 


FAILURE EXPLAINED. 


This being true, it is a natural inquiry, Vhy has 
the Agreement for harmony failed ? 

Is-not the frank confession of the Boston Soci- 
ety, “that the basis proved repugnant to the mass 
of their members,” and the course pursued by their 
Committee, a sufficient answer to this question? 
That Committee had no part in the formation of the 
Agreement. It was framed, so far as the Boston 
Society was concerned, by a Committee of five, ap- 
pointed by the Society outside of the Executive. 
Committee. Had the Conference Committees who 
_ framed the Plan retained the control of the matter, 
we cannot doubt it would have been successfully 
earried through. But it is well undertood that the 
Executive officers at Boston were dissatisfied with 
the Plan from the outset. Many of the speakers at 
the meeting October 1st, in urging the abrogation of 
the Agreement, exhibited the same feeling, in some 


22 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 


cases intensified into bitterness against the Plan 
and against the New York Society. 

More than this, the Boston Executive Commit- 
tee did not carry out even the letter of the Agree- 
ment. They and we were bound not to give more 
than 83} per cent. discount to the trade. In re- 
peated instances they allowed a larger discount. 
We never did. 

Though bound by the agreement, under the 
clause, “transfer of sale and agency,” to transfer 
the agency for selling their books in New York 
to us, they made no effort to accomplish it, their 
former agents in New York to this day selling their 
publications under the sign, ‘‘ AGENCY OF THE AMER- 
IcAN TRAcT-Society, BosTon, INSTITUTED IN 1814.” 

They have never, so far as we know, advertised 
our Society as having their publications for sale, 
or as in any sense their agents. 

Though prohibited by the Agreement from ad- 
dressing personal or other appeals to churches or 
Sabbath-schools, “by circular or otherwise,” they 
have sent over the land circulars containing appeals 
addressed as follows: 


** Rey. 


or Elder of Presbyterian Church.” 
And when addressed to a Congregational church, thus : 


6 Rey. 


or Deacon of Congregational Church :” 








which we submit is virtually addressing circulars to 
cHuRCHES. And finally, in violation of the fifth 
Article of Agreement, they went forward to the 


TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 23 


abrogation of the Agreement without giving notice 
of their purpose, avowedly regardless of “ form and 
technicality.” 

Will not all this explain the failure? 

The New York Committee regret the failure of 
the Plan, not because it was in their judgment the 
best, for they were from the first in favor of ORGANIC 
UNION, and this they believe the churches wished ; 
but because it was a fair and honest effort on our 
part to relieve the churches of a double agency to 
do the Tract work. They earnestly desired its suc- 
cess for the sake of peace and the glory of Christ’s 
cause; and their sincere regret now is, the neces- 
sity laid upon them thus in self-defence to state 
publicly the facts. 

But notwithstanding the extraordinary statement 
of the Boston Executive Committee, and the no less 
extraordinary abrogation of the Plan by the Boston 
Society, we feel it our duty, as it is our pleasure, 
particularly to refer to the courtesy and Christian 
intercourse which in our interviews so honorably 
characterized the members of the Conference Com- 
mittee from Boston, each of whom seemed to vie 
with us in suggesting and yielding whatever would 
promote the best interest of the great work in which 
we were mutually engaged, apparently unconcerned 
as to which Society would be most benefited. 

We wish now to rise above and look beyond this 
temporary disagreement of good men laboring for 
the same end, and gladly anticipate the day when 
true friends of this form of Christian effort will 
unite in heart and hand and means to fill the land 


24. AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY. 


and the world with the essential truths of the gos- 
pel. z 

Commending this paper to the candid consider- 
ation of all fair minds, and girding ourselves anew 
to our appropriate work, we invoke the continued 
co-operation and enlarged sympathy of the friends 
of the American Tract Society. 


O. E. WOOD, 


CHAIRMAN OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, 
ON THE PART OF THE N. Y. Sociery. 


TRACT HOUSE, 150 Nassavu-srreet, NEw Yor. 


